coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicants are four Russian nationals.
6.  As victims of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster they were entitled to social housing under domestic law. Because the authorities had failed to provide them with housing in good time, the applicants sought relief in courts. In October and December 2004 the Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar (“the District Court”) held for the applicants, the judgments became binding. The details of the judgments are shown in the appended table.
7.  In March 2006 the writs of execution were issued in respect of the judgments. According to the writs, the applicants were to be granted housing, as ordered by the domestic court.
8.  In 2006 the respondent authority offered the applicants to settle the case by providing them with cash payment in the amount allegedly representing the value of the flat. The applicants submitted that the amounts proposed were manifestly lower than the market value of the flats granted by the domestic judgments.
9.  By four separate written statements the applicants refused the offer. They stated in their refusals that in accordance with the judgments in their favour and with the writs of execution the authorities were under obligation to provide them with flats, and not with the sums of money.
10.  On 24 May 2007 the District Court instructed the bailiffs to enforce the judgments in accordance with the writs of execution.
11.  On 20 November 2007 the bailiffs informed the applicants that the execution of the judgments in compliance with the writs was impossible, “since the Administration of the Krasnodar Region could only use the monetary funds allocated from the federal budget”.
12.  The authorities sought to alter the mode of enforcement of the judgments from in-kind provision of flats to delivery of housing certificates. By a decision of 6 April 2009, upheld on appeal on 7 May 2009, the District Court refused to change the mode of execution of the judgments.
6.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Rózsaszentmárton.
7.  In 1991 the applicant was diagnosed with manic depression. On 27 May 2005 he was placed under partial guardianship. Although this measure was based on the Civil Code which deals with the pecuniary and certain personal relations of citizens (see paragraph 12 below), it nevertheless also attracted the application of Article 70(5) of the Constitution (see paragraph 11 below) to the applicant, excluding him from the right to vote. In the underlying court decision it was noted that he took care of himself adequately but sometimes wasted money in an irresponsible fashion and was occasionally aggressive. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.
8.  On 13 February 2006 the applicant realised that he had been omitted from the electoral register drawn up in view of the upcoming legislative elections. His complaint to the Electoral Office was to no avail.
9.  The applicant further complained to the Pest Central District Court. On 9 March 2006 this court dismissed his case. It observed that, under Article 70(5) of the Constitution, those under guardianship could not participate in elections. This decision was served on the applicant's representative on 25 April 2006.
10.  In the meantime, legislative elections took place on 9 and 23 April 2006, in which the applicant could not participate.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Bucharest.
5.  The applicant lodged a criminal complaint of defamation against a journalist, A.A., together with a civil claim for damages. At a hearing held on 19 December 2001, attended by the applicant's representative, the Bucharest District Court postponed the delivery of a judgment to 28 December 2001. By a first-instance judgment delivered on the latter date the Bucharest District Court dismissed both the criminal complaint and the civil claim.
6.  On 9 January 2002, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. The Bucharest County Court, by a final decision of 15 May 2002, upheld the first-instance judgment in respect of the criminal complaint and reversed the decision in respect of the civil claim. Thus, the county court established the tort liability of the journalist and awarded the applicant 100,000,000 Romanian lei (approximately 3,300 euros (EUR) at the time) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. By the same decision, the county court dismissed the objection to the effect that the appeal on points of law was inadmissible as having been lodged outside the 10-day time-limit. The county court referred to the provisions of Article 363 of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), according to which the period during which an appeal may be lodged starts to elapse on the date of delivery of the judgment if the party concerned was present either at the hearing or at the delivery. As the applicant was not present at the hearing, although her representative was, the period did not start to elapse on the date of delivery of the judgment, and thus the appeal was lodged within the legal time-limit.
7.  On an unspecified date the Procurator–General filed an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice to have the final decision quashed on the ground that the appeal on points of law had been lodged out of time and should have been dismissed as inadmissible.
8.  In a decision of 26 June 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed the extraordinary appeal, quashed the final decision of 15 May 2002 and dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law as having been lodged outside the legal time-limit. The Supreme Court ruled that the presence of the party's representative at the hearing was equivalent to the presence of the party herself and therefore the time-limit had started to run on the date of delivery of the judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and is currently detained in the Tekirdağ F-Type Prison pending the criminal proceedings against him.
5.  On 19 June 1996 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party), an illegal organisation.
6.  On 15 July 1996 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and seven other persons, accusing him of membership of the PKK (case no. 1996/276). On 2 December 1996 the public prosecutor filed a second bill of indictment, charging the applicant, along with sixteen other persons, under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code with carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory (case no. 1996/302).
7.  On 10 April 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court decided to join the two cases against the applicant under case no. 1996/302.
8.  On 13 June 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code and sentenced him to the death penalty.
9.  On 12 February 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court.
10.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was transferred to the Fourteenth Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court.
11.  On 12 April 2007 the applicant objected to his detention during the judicial proceedings and requested his release.
12.  On 28 May 2007 the Ninth Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court dismissed the applicant's objection, having regard to the nature of the offence in question, the existence of a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence and that a heavy sentence would be imposed if he were to be found guilty. No hearing was held.
13.  At a hearing held on 4 June 2008, the Fourteenth Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court ordered the applicant's continued detention in view of the nature of the offence, the existence of a strong suspicion that he had committed the offence and the possibility that he would abscond if released.
14.  In the meantime, between 5 May 2006 and 24 October 2008, the applicant's lawyers requested several extensions from the trial court to submit his defence.
15.  According to the information submitted by the parties, the proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court and the applicant remains in pre-trial detention.
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Varna.
5.  The applicant worked as a stoker at the Varna port. In 1999 he was dismissed as new requirements he did not meet were introduced for his position.
6.  On an unspecified date in October 1999 the applicant brought an action for unfair dismissal alleging that: 1) the dismissal order had not been reasoned; 2) it had been indicated in it that it had been effective as of a date preceding the date when it had been issued; and 3) it had not been necessary to change the requirements for his position.
7.  In a judgment of the Varna District Court of 8 June 2000, upheld by the Varna Regional Court on 12 January 2001, the applicant's dismissal was found to be unlawful.
8.  Upon appeal by the applicant's former employer, in a judgment of 8 May 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the Regional Court's judgment, finding that the latter had misapplied the law.
9.  Following a fresh examination of the case, on 1 August 2002 the Varna Regional Court delivered a new judgment whereby it dismissed the applicant's claim.
10.  On 3 September 2002 the applicant appealed in cassation.
11.  The Supreme Court of Cassation held a hearing to examine the applicant's appeal on 14 October 2004. In a final judgment of 19 November 2004 it upheld the Regional Court's judgment and dismissed the applicant's arguments in respect of the alleged unlawfulness of the dismissal order, finding that: 1) the order indicated the legal ground for the applicant's dismissal, namely that he did not meet the relevant requirements; this represented sufficient reasoning in the case; 2) the order had entered into force on the date it had been served on him, any other date indicated in it as a date of entry into force was irrelevant; and 3) the applicant's former employer had enjoyed discretion, which could not be subject to judicial review, to set the requirements for the applicant's position.
12.  In December 2004 and February 2005 the applicant requested the Varna District Court, where the case file was to be archived, for copies of all court judgments in the case. According to him, the District Court refused to provide him with a copy of the judgment of the Varna Regional Court of 12 January 2001 (see paragraph 7 above). Nevertheless, the applicant has enclosed a copy of the said judgment with his application.
5.  The applicants were born in 1981 and 1961 respectively and lived in Diyarbakır.
6.  On 5 May 1999 the applicants were laid off by the Diyarbakır Sur Municipality (“the Municipality”), with which they had been temporarily employed.
7.  The applicants subsequently brought separate actions before the Diyarbakır Labour Court against the Municipality, claiming outstanding salaries, dismissal indemnities, severance pay and other pecuniary rights.
8.  On 23 December and 11 November 1999, respectively, the labour court granted the applicants' request and ordered the payment of 324,681,000 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] to the first applicant and TRL 927,531,000[2] to the second applicant, together with interest. In the absence of an appeal, these judgments became final on 3 January 2000 and 22 November 1999, respectively.
9.  At the date of introduction of the applications, the judgment debts were still outstanding. However, in the meantime, friendly settlement agreements were reached between the applicants and the Municipality on 31 July 2008 and 10 February 2005, respectively, and the relevant payments were made to the applicants.
3.  The applicant, a former military student, was born in 1981 and lives in Yalova.
4.  On an unspecified date the applicant was expelled from the naval academy in accordance with the Law of Military Academies (Law no. 4466) for failing his class twice.
5.  On 1 August 2001 he brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court seeking the annulment of the expulsion order. Claiming that his exam in Mathematics 1 had not been graded correctly, he demanded the reassessment of his paper in the relevant subject.
6.  On 10 July 2002 the Supreme Military Administrative Court refused the applicant's request. The court acknowledged that the reassessment of the applicant's paper by a group of three experts revealed that the paper had indeed been misgraded, yet even the modified grade did not entitle the applicant to pass his class.
7.  Upon the applicant's request for rectification, on 5 March 2003 the Supreme Military Administrative Court annulled the expulsion order on account of procedural illegalities.
8.  The applicant subsequently retook the exams he had previously failed, yet failed them once again, which led to the issue of a second expulsion order by the naval academy.
9.  On 25 July 2003 the applicant brought another case before the Supreme Military Administrative Court for the annulment of the expulsion order. He again requested reassessment of his paper in Mathematics 1.
10.  On an unspecified date an expert report was submitted to the Supreme Military Administrative Court which confirmed the accuracy of the grading of the applicant's exam paper.
11.  On 29 September 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court held a hearing, where it dismissed the applicant's request for annulment of the expulsion order. The written opinion submitted by the principal public prosecutor to this court prior to the hearing was not communicated to the applicant.
12.  On 12 January 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant's rectification request.
5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Łódź.
6.  On 20 October 2004 the Łódź District Court ordered the applicant's pre-trial detention for a period of fourteen days. The court referred to the reasonable suspicion that the applicant was guilty of fraud while acting in an organised group.
7.  On 6 June 2006 the applicant was arrested. On 13 June 2006 the Łódź District Court ordered his detention for a period of three months. The court held that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged (including establishing and leading an organised criminal group). Furthermore, he had confessed to the charges. The court also stressed that the detention was necessary in order to ensure the proper course of the proceedings, in particular as the applicant had been in hiding.
8.  In July his detention was extended until 6 November 2006. The court repeated the reasons previously given.
9.  On 14 June and 3 July 2006 the applicant's wife, M.G., asked for permission to visit her husband in prison. On 20 June and 5 July 2006 respectively, the Łódź Regional Prosecutor refused her requests. The prosecutor made handwritten notes on M.G.'s applications – “no permission” and “permission refused” respectively (“brak zgody”, “nie wyrażam zgody”).
10.  On 24 July 2006 the applicant was again refused permission to be visited by his wife and children by the Piotrków Trybunalski District Court. The prosecutor made a handwritten note on the applicant's motion “permission refused” (“nie wyrażam zgody”).
11.  On 24 September 2006 the applicant was visited by his daughter.
12.  On 26 October 2006 the Łódź District Court extended the applicant's detention until 6 May 2007. The court held that the original reasons for his detention were still valid. The court also referred to the likelihood of a heavy sentence and the fact that the applicant had acted in a criminal group. The court further refused the applicant's request for release.
13.  On 21 February 2007 the Łódź District Court refused the applicant's application for release and the replacement of detention by more lenient preventive measures. The court referred to the grounds given in previous decisions.
14.  The trial began on 4 April 2007. There were sixteen other co‑accused in the proceedings. The prosecutor asked the court to hear 106 witnesses.
15.  At the hearing held on 29 May 2007 the applicant again asked for the preventive measure to be changed. The court refused his request and extended the detention until 31 July 2007.
16.  Between 8 June 2007 and 2 May 2008 the applicant was visited by his wife on twelve occasions.
17.  The applicant's detention was subsequently extended on several occasions, in particular on 23 August and 5 October 2007.
18.  On 8 May 2008 the applicant was released from detention.
19.  It would appear that the proceedings are pending.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 27 February 1995 the applicant filed a civil claim with the Commercial Court (Trgovinski sud) in Belgrade, seeking payment of 34,975 Euros by its former business partners.
7.  Following three remittals, the Commercial Court scheduled the next hearing for 13 September 2005 at 11 a.m.
8.  On the morning in question, the applicant's lawyer was on unrelated business at the Third Municipal Court (Treći opštinski sud) in Belgrade. The applicant maintains that at 10.30 a.m. his lawyer took a taxi in order to reach the Commercial Court as soon as possible. Some 700 meters before its destination, however, the taxi broke down and the applicant's lawyer had to continue on foot. He ultimately arrived in court at 11.04 p.m., just in time to see the judge finish the dictation of the minutes in the applicant's case to his secretary. One of the lawyers acting on behalf of the respondents was also present.
9.  On an unspecified date thereafter the applicant received the Commercial Court's decision (rešenje) dated 13 September 2005, wherein it was stated that neither party had duly appeared before the court, which is why the proceedings had to be terminated (see paragraph 18 below).
10.  On 19 September 2005 the applicant requested procedural reinstatement, i.e. restoration of proceedings to status quo ante (see paragraph 16 below). It explained why its lawyer had been late and proposed that the taxi driver, as well as the respondents' counsel, be heard.
11.  On 26 September 2005, in the absence of an oral hearing, the Commercial Court rejected the applicant's request (doneo rešenje kojim se odbija predlog), stating that procedural reinstatement could only be granted in a case of force majeure. Moreover, the applicant's lawyer should have acted with greater diligence and left the Third Municipal Court fifteen minutes earlier, which would even have allowed him, after the taxi broke down, to reach the Commercial Court on foot in time for the scheduled hearing.
12.  On 3 October 2005 and 7 November 2005 the applicant appealed against the Commercial Court's decisions of 13 September 2005 and 26 September 2005, respectively.
13.  On 19 December 2005 the High Commercial Court (Viši trgovinski sud), in the absence of an oral hearing, rejected both appeals. In so doing, it upheld the reasoning of the Commercial Court, added that the applicant had not provided relevant evidence to the effect that the taxi had indeed broken down, and noted that, in any event, “a vehicle defect could not be proved by means of witness testimony” but rather by documentary evidence such as repair receipts.
14.  The applicant received this decision on 26 January 2006.
15.  On 23 April 2009, in response to the Agent's request, Beotaxi, an association of taxi drivers, explained that, given the usual traffic congestion and the location, a replacement taxi would not have been a viable option for the applicant's lawyer. In any event, the Commercial Court was some 700 metres away, which is why it would have taken their client some 5-7 minutes on foot to reach his destination.
6.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in St Petersburg. The applicant is a lawyer.
7.  On 25 June 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of financial wrongdoings. On 27 June 2003 the Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg remanded him in custody.
8.  On 20 August, 21 October and 23 December 2003 and 21 January 2004 the period of the applicant's detention was extended. It does not appear that the applicant lodged appeals against the extension orders.
9.  On 17 February 2004 the first deputy prosecutor of St Petersburg set aside the investigator's decision to change the applicant's procedural status to that of an accused.
10.  On 18 February 2004 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg extended the applicant's detention until 24 March 2004. The applicant did not lodge an appeal.
11.  On 1 March 2004 the investigator issued a new decision to change the applicant's status to that of an accused.
12.  On 24 March 2004 the St. Petersburg Prosecutor's Office referred the case against the applicant to the Kirovskiy District Court for trial.
13.  On 29 March 2004 the Kirovskiy District Court issued a decision fixing the date of a preliminary hearing for 26 April 2004. The decision did not mention the question of the applicant's detention.
14.  On 26 April and 26 May 2004 hearings were adjourned.
15.  On 24 August and 21 December 2004 and 18 March 2005 the Kirovskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention, each time for a further three months.
16.  On 11 April 2005 the St Petersburg City Court examined the applicant's appeal against the decision of 29 March 2004. The applicant complained that he had been unlawfully held in custody because the authorised period of his detention had expired on 24 March 2004 and because the District Court had not taken any decision on the remand measure. The City Court rejected the appeal, finding as follows:
“The court finds that the said decision is lawful, justified and reasoned... The court had examined the issues listed in Article 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was reflected in the subsequent legal acts – of 24 August 2004 and others – including the remand matters.”
17.  On 3 and 4 May 2005 the applicant made an objection to the trial judge. He alleged that someone had approached his father and his counsel on the judge's behalf and told them that the judge would set the applicant free in exchange for a large sum of money. Replying to the prosecutor's questions, the applicant was unable to furnish any details of the alleged extortion, such as the date of the phone call. Furthermore, the applicant claimed that the judge was biased because she had not promptly dispatched his appeals to the City Court.
18.  The trial judge rejected the objections as not supported by concrete evidence. On 3 October 2005 the City Court upheld that decision on appeal.
19.  On 6 June 2006 the Kirovskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of misappropriation of a private company's property and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment. On 29 May 2007 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the conviction on appeal.